Sunday, November 29, 2015

AT least give Prince Charles credit. He’s tried to stop tomorrow's climate talks in Paris from seeming a farcical irrelevance by bringing up so own idea that smacks of unscientific irrelevance.

Just think: some 140 world leaders and 40,000 delegates will gather to complain about the kind of gasses they just blew out the back of their jets.

They will pretend to save us from a global warming that’s killed no one, while 30,000 French police and soldiers guard them from Islamist terrorists who’ve butchered thousands.

That’s what our leaders have come to — moralising about a fantasy threat rather than tackling a real one. After all, where’s the world conference on Islamist terrorism?

Instead.....Prince Charles blames the rise of the Islamic State not on the filthy teachings in the Koran but man-made global warming:

The Syrian crisis that is spreading terror across the world was prompted by climate change, the Prince of Wales has claimed…

‘Some of us were saying twenty-something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change, which means that people have to move. ‘There’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land.’

Let’s fact-check these claims:

2001:
The International Food Policy Research Institute warns that overpopulation and overstocking in the Middle East will make droughts worse:

Drought is a recurrent and often devastating threat to the welfare of countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) where three - quarters of the arable land has less than 400 mm of annual rainfall, and the natural grazings, which support a majority of

the 290 million ruminant livestock, have less than 200 mm. Its impact has been exacerbated in the last half century by the human population increasing yearly at over 3%, while livestock numbers have risen by 50% over the quinquennium.

2008:
Australian researchers predict global warming will actually bring more rain to key parts of the Middle East:

The prospect of climate change sparking food shortages and water wars in the Middle East is less likely than previously thought, with new UNSW research suggesting that rainfall will be significantly higher in key parts of the region.

2010:
Syria gets a drought - like it so often does - albeit one more prolonged than most:

2011:
The drought ends, and Israel proves that rich and free societies can easily survive what poor tyrannies next door cannot:

“Israel is no longer drying up and the severe drought ended two years ago,” Water Commissioner Alexander Kushnir told “Globes TV” today [October 2, 2013]. “We’re emerging from the drought, and the water sector has stabilized at a supply rate for the next 10-15 years.”

The Akkadian empire flourished in the third millennium BC. Sometime around 2,200 BC drought hit, the lands dried and people migrated from urban centres. The government then collapsed, and the mighty empire began to falter in a series of calamities collectively referred to as the third-millennium Mesopotamian urban crisis.

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.... Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.

2015:
The harvest in Syria this year is again good, leading the United Nations World Food Programme to

plead for a ceasefire to let farmers bring it in and transport the food to where it’s needed.

2015:
More evidence that global warming is not causing food shortages but, if anything, record harvests. The US Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service has just reported that the world’s wheat production has just set “a new record” and world corn production “is up”. Rice production is only very slightly below the record harvests of 2013/2014. Corn production this year in Turkey, Syria’s northern neighbour, sets a record.

Similar picture from the International Grains Council of increasing food production in this era of “global warming”:

The Way I See It.......and by summing up. There’s been no statistically significant warming for 18 years. No one is sure whether more warming will bring more rain or less to the Middle East. There is little evidence that warming of world over the last century has brought more droughts, although Syria had a bad drought that ended four years ago, before the rise of the Islamic State. Democratic Israel survived the drought without difficulty. Syria is much more vulnerable to drought with so many more poor farmers and livestock. Syria has had worse droughts before. World food crops are actually increasing. Those bastards in Paris should get their heads out of their ass and recognize the reality!

Conclusion: Prince Charles is a reckless scaremonger and denier of the science and should take his tweed jacket and bud-out!

Saturday, November 28, 2015

As an Ex-Pat, a number of American holidays still bring a warm glow of my childhood recollections growing up in that leafy suburb of New York City. And now as my compatriots enjoy the long Thanksgiving weekend I came across this insight into what this American tradition should mean.Charles Lane (photo right) is a Washington Post editorial writer, specializing in economic policy, federal fiscal issues and business, and a contributor to the PostPartisan blog and here expresses Lincoln's thoughts.

When you think about it, Thanksgiving Day is a paradoxical holiday for a country such as the United States.

Gratitude is nearly the opposite of grievance. Yet, despite the many reasons we may have to feel the former, our political institutions were consciously designed to protect, even encourage, the expression of the latter.

The right to take a day off each November to count our blessings, between mouthfuls of turkey and stuffing, isn’t actually in the Constitution; but our right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” is.

Of course, this right, exercised peacefully and with civility, is essential to freedom and self-government. When grievances multiply, and when groups begin to define themselves by them, however, division and instability grow. When politicians inflame and exploit mutually exclusive grievances for their own advantage, the system can begin to break down.

It’s frighteningly easy to start down this slippery slope, especially when people lose sight of the big things they all have in common, as the Constitution’s main author recognized long ago.

“So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities,”James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 10, “that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

Madison’s meditation is extra-relevant in this season of political discontent; a time when would-be presidents of the most prosperous and secure nation in human history are encouraging voters to think of themselves as victims of a “rigged” system — or demonizing everyone and everything, from the incumbent president, to Congress, to their Muslim neighbours, to the media, to “the billionaire class.”

An even more appropriate reflection for today, though, would come from the writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln, who proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863.

In the midst of a ghastly and seemingly endless civil war, the 16th president nevertheless urged Americans to express their gratitude to God for “the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies,” and the “harmony [that] has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict.”

The connection between blessing-counting and democratic stability was one that Lincoln had been pondering at least since one of his earliest published speeches , which he gave while a young member of the Illinois legislature to the January 1838 gathering of the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield.
Lincoln spoke at a time of frightening lawlessness on the American frontier, including the recent lynching in Alton, Ill., of an abolitionist editor, Elijah Lovejoy (photo right), by a pro-slavery mob during their attack on his warehouse to destroy his press and abolitionist materials. Lovejoy had condemned the earlier lynching of a black man accused of murder in St. Louis.

Condemning Lovejoy’s murder, Lincoln also alluded to violence seemingly unrelated to race, such as a massacre of white gamblers in Vicksburg, Miss. This implicitly reminded apologists for the attack on Lovejoy that no one was safe from the mobs. And it set up his broader point: that the violence was a symptom of waning gratitude for the American Revolution’s establishment of freedom and the rule of law — incomplete though it was.

Now that the revolutionary generation of political leaders had died out, he argued, a new one had arisen that took its ancestors’ achievements for granted — and sought power and popularity not by trying to make the country’s successful institutions even better, but by stoking grievances, real or imagined.

“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law,” Lincoln told the Lyceum. And yet, he said, many an ambitious politician, seeing no easy opportunity to advance by “building up” the system, “would set boldly to the task of pulling down.”

The antidote, he argued, was national unity and renewed “reverence for the laws.” This should be based not on a complacent belief that “there are no bad laws,” — slavery was one — but rather on an overriding mutual interest that laws be impartially enforced and, when necessary, peacefully corrected.

The alternative, Lincoln prophesied all too accurately, would be division, instability and, ultimately, national “suicide.” No foreign military threat could “crush” the United States, he told the Lyceum, but “if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author.”

The Way I See It......a quarter-century later, Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation did not address Americans as aggrieved victims, as it might well have done, but as citizens who must acknowledge their share of responsibility for the country’s predicament. It accordingly urged them to offer not only thanks but also “humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.”

Today, be thankful that the conflicts, dysfunction and threats of our time do not equal those of Lincoln’s — but reflect on how far we still are from adhering to his wisdom.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

The crimes committed by the Islamic State (or the ‘death cult’ as Australia's ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott likes to refer to it) are no worse than those committed during any other war except that, for the first time in history, a war is being fought using YouTube and highly professional production crews.

Yep, Islamic State is doing no more than presenting the world with coverage that no previous war correspondent has been able to. But Islamic State burns its victims alive, you say?
The US did the same with flame throwers thrust down foxholes in WWI and WWII along with napalm in the Vietnam war.

But Islamic State uses suicide bombers.The Japanese used heavenly rewards for Kamikazes in WWII.

But Islamic State beheads its victims.
The Japanese beheaded many more Australians during WWII.

But Islamic State herds its victims into trenches before spraying them with automatic weapons.This was commonplace in European and Asian warfare. It was widely practised in the Chechen wars.

But Islamic State publicly hangs its victims.
The Allies, Russia and Germany did the same, hanging has been a part of all wars.
But Islamic State uses rape as a weapon of degradation against women and young girls.
Again a common practice in all wars.

But Islamic State establishes cells behind enemy lines in the West.
Espionage has been very much a part of all wars.
But Islamic State destroys the iconic landmarks of its enemies.

Hitler and the Allies did the same.
But the Islamic State intentionally targets civilians.
The Germans sunk the passenger liner the Lusitania and Lieut. Calley wiped out the entire village of My Lai.

But Islamic State uses religion as an incentive.
Let’s not go there shall we?

So what IS the difference? Well, this war is an undeclared war, a war where we refuse to publicly identify the enemy. It’s a war where we welcome the enemy on to our homelands and allow it to

build religious monuments to demonstrate its supremacy and to train its operatives.

We allow it to plan our demise and recruit members from our own citizenry on our own doorstep. We shower it with social welfare benefits and make it illegal for us to complain about it via racial discrimination legislation.

This is a modern PC war where the atrocities are identical but the usual retaliation doesn’t exist. Al Baghdadi’s handbook has coloured pictures instead of diarised notes to be pored over by vexatious politicians at a later date.

This is a war where war crimes are not concealed but boasted of.

Islamic State as a fighting force should have been extinguished two years ago but we chose to ignore it. In those two years radical Islam has become an amalgam of hundreds of loosely aligned, often competitive, terrorist organisations that grow stronger daily.Ignoring this war has become the West’s biggest mistake yet.

Islamic State was allowed the time to force the “coalition” into an unwinnable guerrilla war. It infiltrated and terrorised Iraqi, Kurdish and Yazidi cities where it melded into civilian populations. We now need indiscriminate bombing that kills hundreds of civilians, in order to extinguish one Islamic State fighter.
.
Visions of Vietnam, yet this is a fighting force with no helicopter gunships, no air force, no navy and no satellite intelligence. It relies on utes that become undetectable in city backstreets. The tanks and equipment it stole from retreating US-supplied Iraqis have become useless, as desert warfare requires that everything from tanks to choppers have two hours’ maintenance for every one hour in service.

But they have had time to develop a sophisticated international network and for every hour the West refuses to confront them on the ground they sneak two hours ahead. The on-going Middle Eastern

migration into Europe carried ISIS operatives into many countries to stage terrorist attacks. Already the Paris massacre was an example of that and Belgium is today in a state of High Alert for an attack and police in Germany and Sweden hunt out more cells that have been augmented by this unprecedented migration.

In a matter of months now, al Queda splinter cells in the West will be directing drones laden with semtex to sports events and iconic structures including parliament houses. Airline pilots on final approach are already being met with trial runs of drones loaded with IAP glide slope co-ordinates. No need to fly airplanes into buildings now, this can all be done on a laptop from the safety of an unknown lounge room.

Did we really have to wait this long to identify a homeland threat?

The Way I See It.....don’t expect Australia to confront an Islamic threat in Asia while it appeases relations with Indonesia and is allowing similar Islamic slaughter of thousands of West Papuan Christians next door. When the pubs have closed you can almost hear them screaming in Darwin.

This is an Islamic World War we have set ourselves up to lose if we don't get our new Prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull to stop waffling long enough to get serious about getting boots on the ground, if not, who have we left to sort the Islamic State out? ...the Iranians of all people! You know the ones who, with Obama’s blessing, are developing a nuclear bomb to blow Israel off the map for starters.

Bloody hell, this is a madness beyond belief! I’m going back to bed to try waking up again !!!

The most basic, primitive honor a nation owes to its dead is to fight to defend itself—to defeat the enemy and win. And yet the West won’t.

The West is hanging on by a thread and doesn’t even know it. We are living off the fumes of the accomplishments of our forefathers and those who fought and died in the cause of freedom and individual rights. But the thread is wearing thin. Time is just about running out.

After the murderous jihad attacks in Paris comes the predictable Western response: not resolute self-defense, but weepy candlelight vigils, protestations of unity, and hashtags. After the jihad attacks in Garland, Texas, Chattanooga, the University of California Merced, and scores of arrests of American Muslims working for ISIS (the FBI has 900 ISIS-related investigations currently ongoing), our top priority should be to crush the enemy.

Instead, we get pathos and pitiful memes. NBC reported: “Paris residents were using the hashtag #PorteOuverte — French for ‘open door’—on Twitter to offer safe haven to strangers stranded after a string of deadly attacks Friday night.” Everyone is congratulating himself over this hashtag. “Twitter users in other countries,”NBC added, “also began using the hashtag to share their delight that social media was being used for a good cause”—colossal stupidity.

“Share their delight?” This delight is misplaced. I would expect nothing less than that Parisians should offer safe haven: just because savages are at war with us doesn’t mean that we should be less human.

This hashtag is just the latest in an endless stream of manifestations of the sophomoric, embarrassing, preening self-indulgence that is endemic in our sick culture. It is reminiscent of “Boston Strong”: Really? How? After the Boston Marathon jihad bombings, the media and Boston elites refused to call the attack ''jihad.'' The Boston city government refused repeatedly to run our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) counter-jihad ads, but run vicious Jew-hatred ads regularly. We are en route to the Supreme Court compelling Boston to run our ads. What’s strong about Boston? What stand did Boston take against jihad?

Equally revolting is theEiffel Tower peace symbolthat is circulating around. Do the leftists think the ISIS jihadis will see this and lay down their arms? If the Christians and Yazidis in Syria make the peace sign, will all be well? If the kidnapped schoolgirls—now sex slaves —make the peace sign, will they be freed? Such idiocy is an affront to every freedom-loving human being

The endless patting ourselves on the back that citizens of Western countries engage in after a mass slaughter by jihadists is disgusting. People are crowing about hashtags and blood donations as if this is somehow new. Of course we care. We always care. That is our value system, that is a Western value. The United States of America is the most charitable nation on earth. That is who we are—although when Obama speaks about universal values, G-d only knows which ones he is talking about: those of the West or those of Sharia.

What no one is talking about is taking on these savages. That is what is so morally depraved about our response. The idea that we’re not allowed to take the appropriate measures to defeat the Islamic State is obscene. The idea that the United States of America cannot defeat the Islamic State or al-Qaeda is absurd, and the whole world knows it. But we choose not to use our strength. We choose to be victims. It’s shameful.

And clearly, since everybody knows that we are not physically weak, where is the basic dignity that any nation should have, to stand up for its own values? If nothing else, when we find ourselves involved in a war, we should fight it and finish it. You either win or you will be defeated.

Obama has aligned with the jihad force. In Syria, Egypt and Libya, and worst of all, now Iraq. He has blood on his hands. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christians, the blood of our soldiers. By abandoning Iraq, he takes on his hands the death of every

soldier who gave life and limb in Iraq to defend this country. Whether you agreed with the Iraq war or not, we did it. We went in and asked the native population to help us. You cannot just withdraw and abandon those people.

Is it proper for us to defend ourselves and to take the appropriate action to defend this country? Of course. One of Obama’s historic crimes is that he allowed our superiority to deteriorate. But that doesn’t mean our enemies have disappeared, or that we cannot or should not defend ourselves against them. Just hours after Obama insisted that he had contained the “Junior Varsity team” ISIS, they laid siege to Paris. And this goes unchallenged.

When Muslims attack, the left attacks us.MSNBC, theGuardian, andSalonall ran pieces blaming the “right-wing” for the Paris attacks. Outrageous, but not surprising. The enemedia is aligned with the jihad force. As the jihad heats up in the West, the media is becoming more clumsy and desperate in its attempts to deflect attention away from the jihad and back to its favorite bogeyman, “right-wing extremists.” Now, even when the evidence of Islamic jihad responsibility is everywhere, as it is with the Paris attacks, journalists still find ways to put the blame on the “right-wing” that they hate far more than they do bloodthirsty jihadis, whom they don’t dislike at all.

If you have an ounce of self-esteem, when someone comes at you with a gun, you answer with force. If he is out to destroy you, you owe it to yourself to defend yourself. We need to understand that the left is as dangerous, if not more so, than the suicide bomber, for obscuring this basic fact—because leftists have the legitimacy of the mainstream, the imprimatur of respectability, and they wield this spurious legitimacy like a club to destroy all opposition to their totalitarianism.

We need to go to war against the left. We have to get that into our heads. We have to accept that terrible reality. They want to destroy our freedom. They want to destroy our country. They want to steal our children. That’s war. There is no one on the right who has the correct philosophy about this. The left demands the right to lie, and they are lying to the American people on a massive scale, even to the extent of making people think there is something wrong with loving and defending our nation.

The idea that the Paris attacks happened on the eve of a global conference not on the gravest threat to freedom, not on the global jihad, but on climate change, speaks to how unreal and sick we are as rational beings. Even worse, as if that weren’t bad enough, you have a presidential candidate saying that climate change is responsible for terrorism and a president that says over and over, that Climate Change is more dangerous and ISIS. And the very serious talking heads in the mainstream media are reporting this with a straight face.

The Way I See It......the fact is, global jihadists, whether they’re ISIS or al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah, are monstrous aggressors. We don’t have to wait for the first sign that they are attacking; they have declared war against us. They must be destroyed. We can’t complain about what we should or shouldn’t be doing, we have to correct it. This idea of containment, as Obama claimed the other day to have “contained” ISIS, is absurd—he's an idiot in denial or a Muslim sympathizer with an agenda..

There is no intermediate state. It’s either/or. This is war. We have to fight it.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Australian Journalist and TV commentator, Andrew Bolt (photo right) makes an observation.
:
Last night on the TV show The Project,Waleed Aly :

- suggested it wasn’t actually the work of the Islamic State, even though the Islamic State has taken responsibility and France has retaliated by attacking Islamic State targets in Syria.

- claimed it was some kind of self-motivated “DIY” terrorism, even though the attack was extensive, clearly well-planned and well-supplied, involving at least eight heavily armed terrorists from at least three countries, with one terrorist apparently arriving in Europe as a “Syrian refugee” just last month.

- claimed the Islamic State was actually “weak”, even though this “weak” terrorist outfit has in the past month killed 129 people in France, 224 people in a Russian jet in Egypt and 44 people in bombings in Beirut.

- warned against fighting the Islamic State in Syria on the grounds we’d been falsely told that destroying al Qaeda would “end” terrorism - a claim no leader anywhere actually made, and one that ignores the inability of al Qaeda to repeat its “success” of September 11 since the invasion of Afghanistan.

- gave not one single proposal for actually fighting the Islamic State or reducing the terrorism threat other than a fatuous call to “unite”, even though he is a lecturer at Monash University’s terrorism centre.

Worse, though, Aly (left) in his editorial singled out just one Australian by name - and picture - for criticism. No, it wasn’t a Muslim hate preacher like Sheik Wahwah. It wasn’t the evasive Grand Mufti, who today actually used the France terrorism to demand the West treat Muslims better. It wasn’t any of the Muslims who have joined or recruited for the Islamic State or shot or stabbed Australians here. It wasn’t any of the 21 Muslims jailed here for terrorism offences.

No, the one Australian this piece of shit attacked was Pauline Hanson, a non-Muslim who has warned against the threat of jihadism. That is disgraceful. That is evasive. That is scapegoating.Pauline Hanson does not threaten to kill anyone. She does not espouse the creed of those who do.

True, Aly this time did mention Islam, which he refused to do in some past attempts to explain some Islamist terrorist attack. But he did not give some important context in giving his bizarre take on the Paris atrocity.

First, he is a Muslim and was spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria at a time that it had voted to make the extremist Sheik Hilali the Mufti of Australia. He could be seen to have an agenda.

Second, just last year he falsely claimed the Islamic State represented no great threat to us:

''What seems to underlie all of this is that ISIS represents a serious threat to Australia. Can you give us an indication of precisely the scope of that threat and the mechanism, can you describe it precise terms? Because it’s not immediately clear when you consider this is a movement on the other side of the world that seems to be importing people rather than exporting them.''

Since then, an Islamic State supporter staged the deadly Martin Place siege. Another Islamic State supporter stabbed two police in Melbourne. A teenager in contact with the Islamic State shot police accountant Curtis Cheng. The Paris terrorists, linked to the Islamic State, shot an Australian teenager. I believe Channel 10 must question whether Aly and his unrepentant religion should be the station’s main explainer of Islamist terrorism or be exposed, expelled and exiled as a gross apologist for that hateful, non-reformist religion.

UPDATE :
Mind you, I am the bad guy. The media Left on Twitter is loving Aly's take. Anything that suggests that we can fight the Islamic State with a few hugs and hashtags, plus a big bucket of sand in which to bury our heads, is just what they want to hear.

Monday, November 16, 2015

It’s Monday morning and university academics have stirred from their weekend bongs to answer the call from media for sage commentary on the terrible carnage in Paris. So again we choke on our Weet Bix as we listen to the same regurgitated, Left-wing advice that we must, “engage with the Islamic community to ensure a forward defence against radical Islam”.

University group-think is about as far from urban group-think as you can get. It’s a different world inside those insulated grey walls of self introspection.

Engagement for Christ’s sake? Where was the condemnation of ISIS from the not-so-grand Australian Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, the non English-speaking Sunni grub and overt supporter of proscribed terrorist group, Hamas? “He is attending an important meeting”, his minders advised. (The Grand Mufti is entrusted with legally interpreting Shariah Law and is an closet ISIS sympathizer.) Last week he was all sweetness and light with our new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Today, his National Imam Council came out with a statement that is a disgrace. Worse, it is dangerous and ominous.

According to this Son-of-a-Bitch Mufti and his imams, the main “causative factors” behind the kind of terrorism visited on Paris have nothing to do with the Koran. They have nothing to do even with interpretations of the Koran. In fact, even the Islamic State - which claimed credit for the mass-murder - is not mentioned as a “causative factor”. There is no mention of Muslim agency in the slaughter whatsoever. No mention even of the Muslim countries, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, which sponsor extremists and terrorists. There is only that familiar and lethal victimology - an accusation that the horrors unleashed in Paris and elsewhere are driven by the cruelty the West inflicts on Muslims. Blah, blah, blah.

And so, according to this statement, to defend ourselves we must abandon the Jews of Israel, and - it seems - stop fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. We must drop our security guard. We must stop being suspicious of the faith followed by the Paris terrorists and so many others. We must blame ourselves, and not them. Nowhere in the statement is any obligation imposed on Muslims to change, reform their faith, assimilate or show loyalty to their fellow citizens.

How is it possible that the most senior Muslim in Australia is able to visit and cavort with the most senior leaders of Hamas and not be arrested upon his return? The Mufti expressed his “happiness at being in Gaza”, describing it as, “the land of pride and martyrdom”. Are these the Muslim leaders our uni academics demand we engage with? Sack the Mufti now. Sack the national council of

imams. Those who hope for our Muslim leaders to take responsibility for reforming their faith are hoping in vain. The Prime Minister must address this scandalous response.

These are the same Muslim leaders who refused tea and bickies with Tony Abbott. The same bearded cretins who, as our welfare dependent guests, demand our destruction from within our own homeland and rip off Aussie companies with their Halal certification demands?

And from where do these bearded cretins preach their evil to the impressionable? If you muttered mosques between gritted teeth, go straight to the top of the class!

The most evil of all Islamic extremists abide in the upper echelon of Muslim elders. It is from there that extreme radicalism percolates down to the ready and willing foot soldiers. The Mufti will not stain his hands with the blood of infidels, that’s for the expendable and malleable idiots who strap on suicide vests... and it’s pretty pointless trying to engage with them.

Haven’t these dumb neo-Marxist uni academics noticed Muslims elected to the highest offices in the land are, without exception, the most extreme of all Islamic radicals? If there is no room for pacifists at the top of the Islamic ladder, why would there be room for peaceful “engagement”.

If it is to be war, and the French are bombing the hell out of al Raqqa right now, then don’t try to psychoanalyse the enemy, kill the vermin first! Save the post mortems for the archives.

The Way I See It.......ISIS has the West spooked, yet its only militarily handbook is the Koran. Its only terms of engagement is a copy of their Prophet’s MO, it’s only equipment is poorly serviced and stolen from the Americans. It has no air force, no navy and no ability to pilot anything. It is still a rag-tag bunch of murdering thugs in utes that believes it will conquer the West to declare a Sunni/Wahhabist/Shariah Law Caliphate akin to the despicable Saudis’.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 was still substantial.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, (right) a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, (photo above left) a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, (photo right) a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

The Way I See It.......the US space agency research claims an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is "currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from melting glaciers.''
Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after NASA also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.

Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice.

But a NASA spokesman repeated: "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. "That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 but still this is nothing to sneeze at."

Now, as Paris approaches – although scarcely noticed by the Western media – we can see just what the 20 countries responsible for 81 per cent of global CO2 emissions are proposing as their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to cutting emissions by 2030…China, (photo right) now easily the world’s largest emitter, contributing 24 per cent of the total, plans by 2030 to double its CO2 emissions, not least by building 363 more coal-fired power stations. India, now the third-largest emitter, plans by 2030 to treble its emissions. The fourth-largest emitter, Russia, despite slashing its emissions after 1990 by closing down much of its old Soviet industry, now proposes to increase them from their 2012 level by up to 38 per cent.
Japan, the fifth-largest emitter, does claim that it will cut its emissions by some 15 per cent, but is still planning to build more coal-fired power plants. Although South Korea, the world’s seventh-largest emitter, claims that it will cut emissions by 23 per cent (not least by buying “carbon credits” that will allow it to “offset” its continuing production of CO2 for cash), even its proposed target will still be 100 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago.
As for the Middle East, the oil states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran (the eighth and ninth-largest emitters) have not yet submitted any proposals. But the United Arab Emirates, which have more than doubled their emissions since 2002, show no sign of slowing that increase, apart from a promise to invest in more “carbon-free” solar and nuclear power. As for Brazil, which as the 11th largest emitter has been rapidly increasing its dependence on fossil fuels, it sees its main contribution as being to slow the felling and burning of the Amazon rainforest.
So which countries are obviously missing from this list? President Obama may talk the talk about his ambitious plans for the US, the world’s second-largest emitter. But there is no more chance of Congress agreeing to the proposed treaty than there was in 1997, when the Senate unanimously voted no to Kyoto.
All of which leaves the EU as the only part of the world committed to cutting its emissions by 40 per cent within 15 years. Even here, Poland is already refusing to sign the treaty, as it builds more fossil-fuel power stations to keep its lights on, while Germany, (chart left) the sixth-largest emitter does the same.

And what about that Green Climate Fund, supposed by 2020 to be dishing out $100 billion every year to help developing countries to “adapt to climate change”? Firm pledges received so far total just $700 million, leaving $99.3 billion still to go. The only real question that will remain after the failure of this bid for a binding treaty in Paris is how much longer it can be before the most expensive and foolish scare story in history finally falls apart.

The Way I See It.......despite the media’s best efforts, there has been a huge shift in opinion. The global warming scare is dying.This is encouraging !

The Sydney Morning Herald misses the most astonishing finding of the CSIRO study to complain that Malcolm Turnbull leads a party of sceptics: Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly cause by humans, with more than half of Liberal voters believing changes to global temperatures are natural, according to a CSIRO survey.And it holds out false hope:

Andy Pitman, Director of ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, predicted that many Coalition voters will take their cue from the new PM and shift their views.

They didn’t last time, Mr Pitman. No, this is a reminder to Malcolm Turnbull not to push his luck too hard as leader of a party far more sceptical than he is:

But this Herald report misses the most startling finding: only a minority of Australians now think man is mostly to blame for global warming. More think global warming is largely natural or not happening

The Associated Press Stylebook editors are updating their nomenclature on climate change. Henceforth, people who have been described as climate change “skeptics” and “deniers” will now be referred to as “doubters” or “those who reject mainstream climate science.”

This is welcome news, for it releases people like me from implicit mental alignment with conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites. It may even reflect a glimmer of hope that the honchos at AP are beginning to realize that the “doubters” might actually be on to something, and that it won’t look good for the AP 10 years from now when the doubters turn out to be right after all.

Or maybe they’ve been struck by the fact that in the defamation suit by Michael “hockey

stick” Mann against journalist Mark Steyn, (photo right) who publicly called Mann out as a “fraud,” Steyn is backed in print by a hundred credible scientists, and can boast a host of freedom-of-speech organizations queuing up to witness on his behalf, while not a single scientist has offered to appear in an amicus capacity for the exposed Mann. (Even the most passionate defender of the mainstream view that climate change is a serious threat to the planet has to find that pretty odd, and an obvious sign that the now thoroughly debunked hockey stick myth is a huge embarrassment to the climate-change-as-apocalypse cause.)

To be clear about my self-description as a “doubter,” that is really just a shortcut for saying I am a supporter of the real doubters – and by those I mean not doubters of climate change (the climate is always changing and always has), but doubters that changes caused by man are significant – that is, the scientists and those who have actually done deep research on the science around climate change.

Most of us lay people who argue about this subject amongst ourselves – I’m guessing 99% – are not competent to debate the actual subject. All we’re competent to do is read the statements of the scientists who are debating amongst themselves and ask ourselves who is making the better case in terms lay people can understand.

For me it’s the doubters hands down. Mainly because they speak as secularists devoted to evidence and not as devotees of a religion that calls for blind faith in mystics and gurus like Michael Mann (photo left) and David Suzuki (and although I rarely agree with much that Justin Trudeau has to say, if in fact Trudeau did tell Suzuki he was full of ''sanctimonious crap'' during a phone call regarding western oil fields, I am in full-throated agreement there).

The true believers scoff at folks like me. Usually they adduce the fact that every “reputable” scientist in the world is onside with manmade climate change being an earth-shattering problem, the most serious problem we have, far more serious than triumphalist Islam. But numbers of scientists aren’t important, evidence is. As Albert Einstein reportedly said regarding the book written by dissidents to his Theory of Relativity, One Hundred Authors Against Einstein, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”

Give me a good reason to believe in the believers, and I will consider it. So far I have read a 1000 good reasons to believe the doubters.

There is certainly more than one scientist and more than one investigative journalist pushing back against climate-change mantras. And they simply can’t be waved away as outliers or weirdos. Although God knows, a biased media tries to.

Take, for example, a Paleoclimatologist Robert M. Carter, (photo) Emeritus Fellow and Science Policy Advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs; chief science advisor for the International Climate Science Coalition; and former Professor and Head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University. In September, 2013, after the release of the latest IPCC Assessment Report by Working Group 1, Carter was interviewed by the BBC, and said: “Climate has always changed and it always will – there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.”

The Adherents could not have that! A former climate-change official at the Foreign Office was given space in The Guardian to argue that the decision to give Carter air time was a “betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC’s reputation has been built over generations.” Geneticist Steve Jones said inviting Carter to speak was to give “false balance,” like inviting “a homeopath to speak alongside a brain surgeon.”Greg Barker, a highly placed politician, said, “I am not trying to ban all dissenting voices, but we are doing the public a disservice by treating them as equal, which is not the case.”American climatologist Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry strongly states; ''We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails.''

Do you see the similarity in all these denunciations? Nobody is actually addressing what Carter said. Is what he said true or is it not? If it is true, then this is a problem for the alarmists, a very serious problem. If it is false, why did none of these accusers say so? This scenario is repeated weekly, daily, hourly with many other scientists whose credentials to speak on the issue are impeccable.

And yet the warming trend stopped 18+ years ago with no explanation from the believers (which is why “global warming,” once a dogma carved in stone, morphed into “climate change”). The polar ice caps are not melting on the whole (though some parts soften while other parts thicken), extreme weather is no novelty, sea levels have been rising steadily for 700 years, and the rate has not increased in recent years. We have not run out of fresh water, as was predicted, nor has the Great Barrier Reef died, nor have we seen increasing drought, nor have hurricanes increased.

The Way I See It.......give me a good reason to believe in the believers, and I will consider it. So far I have read 1,000 good reasons to believe the doubters. Let us hope that the AP stylebook editors are the harbingers in a true shift from blind faith to unblinkered open-mindedness. By the way, in case you reflexively assume otherwise, as many people do, all doubters want a clean planet. Skepticism on climate-change mania does not mean indifference to the health of the environment.

Well you can excuse the rugby bloke, he has obviously copped too many hits to the head and you can forget the Nobel Prize bloke ‘cos one of the world’s most evil terrorists copped a Nobel prize and Bernie Fraser, well, sane people are tired of making excuses for the senile ol’ Bernie Fraser (below left).

The world thrives on essential coal and it will do so for at least another 30 years. Australia has the cleanest coal and if our exports cease, South America and China itself will take up the slack themselves with their own dirty coal.

How does that help ol’ Bernie Fraser’s so-called C02 problem?

The most astonishing thing is that only 61 academic dickheads in Australia wanted to put their names to this letter to Fairfax. The letter did not note the names of those who had refused to sign it.

As reported here earlier this year “Prepare for an avalanche of bullshit ahead of the IPCC’s Paris Conference.” And boy has there been some bullshit flying around, all orchestrated by the UN’s desperate little bunch of lying crooks that make up the IPCC!

Wasn’t Abbott’s highly successful “Direct Action” good enough for them? After all it has met all the targets and more! But Direct Action doesn’t raise the ten per cent of carbon tax the UN wants... Abbott successfully avoided this UN scam and showed that responsible people will reduce emissions anyway! Everyone wants cleaner air!

As suspected all along, the IPCC’s interest is not at all in global warming, because the globe is not warming. The IPCC is a tool of a corrupt UN and has been tasked with devising the biggest hoax ever imposed on unwitting voters who will in turn convince reactive governments to comply and pay up.

The global warming hoax is directed at us the idiot voters, not governments or their ministers!

Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed a plethora of old National Geographic and Discovery Channel docos on starving polar bears atop melting icebergs. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen the repeated repeats of SBS and ABC rising seas and increasing temperatures programs! Neither of which is true of course but the unadulterated bullshit continues regardless.

Pollution they say! Okay, what about the millions of tons of burnt, raw kerosene being dumped in the atmosphere each day by the world’s airliners? Oooh! No mention of that! Why not? Well, jetA1 suffers sovereign taxes the UN can’t get their grubby little hands on ten per cent of.

No, no, the UN needs international carbon taxes, the concept of which can be sold to Left wing government foreign ministers who lust after getting their shiny bums on UN seats. How can their visually polluting windmills and sun-dependent solar panels help to solve airliner pollution? Their limited and uneconomic energy cannot be stored as base loads!

Oh yes, I forgot, UN delegates spend most of their time in first class seats.

There was definitely a spring in Julie Bishop’s step when she raced into Abbott’s office to be the first to tell him to pack his stuff... the global warming scam was back on the agenda and the windmills would keep spinning.

No-one questions the fraudulence of the UN’s methods. The IPCC is made up entirely, not of scientists or meteorologists, but of overpaid crooks like chairman Rajendra Pachauri, a scruffy, long-haired, Indian diesel mechanic who resigned after he was found sexually molesting his staff (pictured left).

The IPCC only accepts advice from committed “scientific” warmists. That’s their role. Thus the, “97 percent of scientists agree ...” nonsense, while the 33,000 real scientists, who denounce global warming as a hoax, are never heard from!

The Way I See It.....the UN is proving once again that with constant repetition and weight of money any idiot can be convinced of anything ... and if you don’t believe that, consider this:

The World Health Organisation (just another arm of the corrupt UN) now says snags and bacon are carcinogens and equal to cigarettes and asbestos. WTF?

So please explain why anyone (apart from Julie Bishop of course) would believe anything espoused by this corrupt, exploitative UN mob of international criminals.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 19 years and counting.

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

''It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’sBlog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post #8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

About Me

I live up to my name and speak frankly and for the silent majority so as to counter-balance the leftist, political correctness that pervades my country. I do not hold any legitimate racist feeling against anyone but I will always try to put crossed-referenced information on current events in a proper perspective that will allow for better understanding and discussions among people. My use of colourful language only adds to getting my point across. It's still a free country as far as I can see.
To put more it directly:
Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make some governments uncomfortable, but if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.
Feel free to join the I.P.A., the Institute of Public Affairs to help preserve the ideal of freedoms we are now enjoying.
Please note: Feel free to make a comment if you find it interesting and/or entertaining.